The Southport Inquiry Report, Volume 1 · 2026
AR’s history of purchasing and attempting to purchase archery equipment
AR’s history of purchasing and attempting to purchase archery equipment
AR’s refunded attempted purchase of an archery bow and arrows on 4 March 2022
¶52. On 4 March 2022 AR made an online Amazon order comprising:345 AMA000096, row 49-52.
¶a. From Amazon seller Top Archery, a ‘Toparchery Archery 53’’ Traditional Recurve Bow’ being a ‘Handmade Mongolian Horsebow Hunting Bow… for Adult Hunting Practice’.346 TOPARCHERY Traditional Recurve Bow 53’’ Archery Hunting Handmade Horse bow Longbow 30-50 lbs, found at: www.amazon.co.uk/Toparchery-Traditional-Recurve-Archery-Handmade/ dp/B0718YN372?th=1 An example of a traditional recurve bow shown below:347 www.istockphoto.com/photo/bows-gm637516280-113747777
185¶b. From Amazon seller Chuhuikang, two sets of ‘DZGN Archery Carbon Arrows Spine 500 Hunting Arrows’;
¶c. From Amazon seller G4Free-Direct, a ‘G4Free Archery Deluxe Canvas Back Arrow Quiver’;
¶d. From Amazon seller Fodlon, an ‘Extra Large Drawstring Bag’.
¶To make this order, AR used the email address a.megalania7@yahoo.com The payment card for this transaction was AR’s full name with billing address 10 Old School Close, Banks and the name on the shipping address as “Al Rud”. The Amazon records indicate that this order was cancelled because refunds were made for these purchases. Accordingly, there was no completed delivery for these items.
¶53. Neither the archery bow nor the arrows in this (refunded) order were age restricted items under UK law. The Inquiry nevertheless contacted Top Archery and Chuhuikang about these orders with a number of questions, including what legitimate purpose a child would have for this type of archery equipment. Both companies appear to be based in China. They have not replied to the Inquiry’s requests for information and being outside of the jurisdiction, the Inquiry does not have any powers of compulsion in relation to them.
Observation F:
1. Given the gravity of the matters being investigated, it is unfortunate that Top Archery and Chuhuikang appear to have decided to ignore the Inquiry’s requests for information on a voluntary basis. These companies have acted poorly by failing to respond to the Inquiry’s requests for assistance;
2. Amazon may wish to take note of their sellers’ apparent lack of co-operation in this Inquiry’s investigation.
AR’s successful purchase of archery equipment on 28 March 2022
¶54. On 28 March 2022, AR made a further online Amazon order which partially replicated the sort of order he had made but had refunded on 4 March 2022. The 28 March order comprised:348 AMA000096, rows 58-59.
¶a. From Amazon seller Jiankangyi, the same kind of ‘Toparchery Archery 53’’ Traditional Recurve Bow’ being a ‘Handmade Mongolian Horsebow Hunting Bow… for Adult Hunting Practice’: see paragraph 52, above for an image of this kind of archery bow;
186¶b. From Amazon seller Ping Jianqiang, a set of ‘Huntingdoor 12Pcs 30 inch Archery Carbon Arrows Spine 550 Hunting Targeting Arrows’, which were as below:349 MERP002936/2.
¶c. From Amazon seller Recomoney EU, a ‘Duffel Bag’.350 Due to a referencing error by Amazon, the Inquiry was initially led to believe Recomoney EU had sold actual archery equipment. As such the Inquiry made a statement request to Recomoney EU to which no response has been provided. Since then, however, with a corrected information from Amazon (Third Witness Statement of Mr Boumphrey AMA000110), it is apparent that they only sold AR a bag and the lack of reply from Recomoney, while regrettable, is of no material significance to the Inquiry’s investigation.
¶The payment card for this transaction was in AR’s own full name with billing address 10 Old School Close, Banks. The shipping name and address was given as “Al Rud, 10 Old School Close, Banks”.
¶55. As with the refunded purchase attempted earlier in March 2022, I note neither the archery bow sold by Jiankangyi, nor the arrows sold by Ping Jianqiang were age restricted items under UK law. Again, the Inquiry nevertheless contacted these sellers with a number of questions. They again appear to be China-based and have not replied to the Inquiry’s requests for information. Being outside of the jurisdiction, the Inquiry does not have any powers of compulsion in relation to them.
Observation G:
1. Given the gravity of the matters being investigated, it is unfortunate that Jiankangyi and Ping Jianqiang appear to have decided to ignore the Inquiry’s requests for information on a voluntary basis. These companies have acted poorly by failing to respond to the Inquiry’s requests for assistance;
2. Amazon may wish to take note of their sellers’ apparent lack of co-operation in this Inquiry’s investigation.
¶56. Unlike the earlier March 2022 order, these items were delivered, and they were found in a black holdall under the bunk beds in AR’s room.
187¶57. It is inconceivable that AR bought this archery bow and hunting arrows for legitimate sporting activity; instead, they were early purchases in what was to become his significant collection of weapons. Although possibly more cumbersome than a crossbow, an archery bow still has a lethal potential. In the wrong hands, it is an extremely dangerous weapon. It is perhaps of some significance that AR started by purchasing conventional archery equipment (that was not age restricted), then gravitated towards an interest in crossbows, and then machetes (see further below).
AR testing out purchasing of a crossbow: contact with Tactical Archery and Merlin Archery in May 2022
Tactical Archery
¶58. On the morning of 3 May 2022, AR used the email address a.megalania7@yahoo.com to send an email to the UK seller Tactical Archery (a trading name of MB Outdoors Limited) in the following terms:
¶“Hi, I would like to purchase from Tactical Archery but I would prefer discrete packaging which doesn’t provide any information on what is inside the box. Could I see a photo of what the external packaging of your products look like? Thanks in advance. A.”351 TAC000003.
¶59. The same day, a representative from the company replied as follows:
¶“Thanks for getting in touch. We use grey packaging bags when sending out crossbow. This is so that no one is able to see what is inside.”352 TAC000004.
¶60. An exchange then followed with AR asking the company if the packaging carried any branding, such as “Tactical Archery”, to which the reply indicated that plain grey bags or black wrapping were used.’353 TAC000005; TAC000007; TAC000008; TAC000006. with ‘An exchange then followed with AR sending two identical emails asking the company if the packaging carried any branding, such as “Tactical Archery”, to which the replies indicated that plain grey bags or black wrapping were used.354 T/S: 16/10/17-11/3.
188¶61. Mr Sutherland said that at the time the company did not treat these exchanges as being suspicious. He said that, on occasion, they received enquiries from individuals who intended to give an item as a gift and who for that, or indeed, other reasons, did not want the recipient to be alerted to the identity of the item.355 T/S: 16/12/1-11. However, he accepted that with the benefit of hindsight the fact that AR enquired about packaging three times was “a bit suspicious”.356 T/S: 16/12/12-19.
¶62. Their approach has now changed, and the company now treats repeated questions about the packaging with suspicion.357 T/S: 16/14/9-11.
¶63. At the time, in May 2022, the company used government-approved age verification software (‘AgeChecked’) for the purchase of crossbows. Their requirement at the time was for purchasers to be aged 21 of over. They have since lowered the age at which this applies from 21 to 18, and this was said to be on the basis of their greater confidence in their improved age verification checks. At the time, they did not ask for additional identification if the AgeChecked process was passed. If the AgeChecked process was failed, they would ask for photo ID, a passport or identification with a Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) logo on it, and the identification would be manually checked. They would rely on their own experience in looking out for fake identifications. Having regard to the wording of the Crossbows Act 1987, Mr Sutherland accepted that it would have been sensible to ask for a passport or driving licence for everyone, so as to bring themselves in line with the specific statutory defence.358 T/S: 16/14/16-20/5.
¶64. Commencing in 2025, Tactical Archery voluntarily utilises the procedures for crossbows, as set out above, to the sale of archery bows. A form of photographic identification is now always requested (e.g. a passport or driving licence, or a suitable document bearing the PASS logo) as part of a mandatory process for establishing a customer account. If the name on the identification does not match that of the purchaser, the latter will be asked to provide photographic identification as well. If these steps are successfully completed, the company then applies fraud software to the details which have been provided. These steps are followed by internal checks for previous purchases, or attempted purchases, of concern. The company then uses couriers who provide an age verification service, to ensure that all crossbows and archery bows are delivered to someone who is 18 or over. At present, the delivery is age verified but does not require it to be the purchaser who takes delivery.359 T/S: 16/20/14-25/11.
189¶65. The company’s packaging has changed. Since the events of 29 July 2024, a shipping label is stuck to the outer packaging informing the delivery driver of the need to check the identification of the recipient. There is a separate large label which carries the warning: “MUST ONLY BE DELIVERED TO AN ADULT”.360 T/S: 16/25/12-26/16; TACA000009.
¶66. Mr Sutherland accepted that the ‘Tactical’ in the trading name Tactical Archery could be viewed as bearing an undesirable military connotation and as a consequence they are considering adopting a new name.361 T/S: 16/26/21-27/22. The company is also intending to introduce additional safety measures to identify potentially dangerous customers, particularly by requesting additional background details as part of the ordering process.362 T/S: 16/27/23-28/24. With a view to the anticipated changes in the Crime and Policing Bill, Mr Sutherland was open to introducing the stipulation that the parcel will only be handed to the person who purchased the crossbow or archery bow. Mr Sutherland expressed the view that requesting a ‘selfie’ video – as opposed to a still picture – along with the other formal identification requirements would provide additional protection.363 T/S: 16/29/4-31/2. Mr Sutherland’s own view was that protections were required for bows as well as crossbows because they could be just as powerful, and he thought this should be looked at.364 T/S: 16/31/3-11. As a general proposition, he raised the suggestion that a database of customers’ information could be established, containing information such as the age, address and criminal convictions of those purchasing crossbows and archery bows in England and Wales.365 T/S: 16/31/12-23.
¶67. Of particular note, Mr Sutherland indicated that the extensive enhanced protections which have been instituted by his company have not had an adverse effect on their profitability (“no, not really”). Indeed, some of their clients have expressed their approval of these changes and the company is in any event keen to ensure that they do not sell these potentially dangerous items to those who are under 18.366 T/S: 16/32/9-33/11.
¶68. In the event, despite the exchange of emails, AR did not proceed to attempt to order a crossbow from Tactical Archery.
¶69. I consider that Tactical Archery ought ideally to have been more suspicious at the time about the repeat enquiries AR was making about packaging. AR asked for information three times, signing himself off without using a full name, from an email that bore no relation to his name. However, I accept that it was not a clear and obvious case of a minor seeking to purchase a crossbow, and I accept that Tactical Archery had age identification measures in place at the time. That stage was not reached because AR did not proceed to attempt to order. On balance therefore, I am not critical of Tactical Archery. I note in addition that as well as the protections that they did have in place at the time, Tactical Archery appear to have taken a responsible approach to developing strengthened procedures which age restrict the sale not just of crossbows but also (on their own voluntary basis) of traditional archery bows. Reflecting his firm’s approach, Mr Sutherland was an open and straightforward witness.
190¶70. I shall address below my recommendations in terms of further action that I consider is necessary in respect of crossbows and archery bows.
Merlin Archery
¶71. Later the same morning that AR had first contacted Tactical Archery (3 May 2022), AR also made contact with another UK archery company, Merlin Archery Limited, probably also with a view to purchasing a crossbow. He emailed them asking as follows:
¶“Hi, If I bought an 18+ product how would you verify my age, do you verify ID online or does the delivery person check my ID at my door? Also, do I have to be 18 to receive the product when it is at my door? Thanks in advance. A”367 MERA000002/1.
¶72. On 3 May 2022 Merlin Archery’s customer service manager, Mr Oliver Clayton-Smith, replied as follows:
¶“Thank you for your email.
¶If purchasing an age restricted product such as a Crossbow or Blade article for example, we would need to verify your age before we can dispatch an item. The first thing that we check is the Electoral Register as a lot of people are present on here, if so that is all we need an [sic] your account will be approved and the order processed. If you are not on the electoral register for any reason we would contact you to verify your age by an alternate method, this would normally be through a photo of a passport or driving license [sic].
¶Once your account has been verified once it would not need to be again, so if you were to then order another age restricted product in the future you would need to verify your age again as long as it is on the same account.”368 MERA000002/1.
191¶73. On 5 May 2022 AR sent a further email:
¶“Hi, I would like to purchase from Tactical Archery [sic] but I would prefer discrete packaging which doesn’t provide any information on what is inside the box. Could I see a photo of what the external packaging of your products look like? Thanks in advance. A”369 I note that AR appears to have become confused here as to which archery company he was corresponding with as this was a duplicate of his first email to the other company Tactical Archery.,370 MERA000002/2.
¶74. On 5 May 2022, Mr Clayton-Smith, replied:
¶“Our parcels are all sent in plain brown paper so are as discreet as they can be, I do not have any photos to hand but I am sure you can picture what I mean.”371 MERA000002/2.
¶75. On 5 May 2022, AR sent a further email from a.megalania7@yahoo.com with the subject “Product Packaging”:
¶“Hi,
¶I would like to purchase from Merlin Archery but I would prefer discrete packaging which doesn’t provide any information on what is inside the box. Does the exterior packaging give any indication of what is inside the box? Thanks in advance. A”372 MERA000003/1.
¶76. Merlin Archery did not reply because the information had already been provided. There were no further exchanges, no order was placed, and accordingly no items were delivered.
¶77. Mr Benjamin Jones a Director of Merlin Archery gave evidence in relation to these exchanges and his company’s approach.373 T/S: 16/33/25-70/17; Witness Statement of Mr Jones MERA000006. In his witness statement, Mr Jones had sought to suggest that while the exchange could have been the cause for “some low level suspicion”, they were not sufficient for them to call the police.374 Witness Statement of Mr Jones MERA000006/§18. In his oral evidence, Mr Jones went somewhat further and accepted that the exchanges should have been considered as suspicious.375 T/S: 16/47/13-53/25. Mr Jones thought that the suspicious nature of the queries had not been picked up because they were not as clear cut as some other queries, but he has since implemented an improved system for managing suspicious emails.376 T/S: 16/55/14-56/24. Concerningly, in terms of reporting suspicions to the police, Mr Jones’ perception was that the police would not take action. This was based on unsatisfactory experiences he had faced in the past.377 T/S: 16/56/25-60/25.
192¶78. One point of difference between the evidence of Mr Jones and Mr Sutherland was that Mr Jones, speaking on behalf of Merlin Archery, was less accepting of a need for tighter regulation of conventional archery bows (as opposed to crossbows). He said that conventional archery bows were most definitely used for sporting activity (taught in schools, scout groups and the like), and he was not aware of their use in crime. He suggested that all the inappropriate/ concerning enquiries they received (which they are prepared to report to the police) were in respect of crossbows, not conventional archery bows.378 T/S: 16/37/3-39/20. He supplemented his oral evidence with later extended written reasons.379 MERA000007/2-4.
¶79. As to age verification checks conducted by Merlin Archery at the time, as reflected in the email exchange with AR, they would not carry out age verification checks if the purchaser was on the electoral role. He appeared to accept that it would been sensible to have carried out checks on all customers’ identification documents to bring the company within the section 1A defence.380 T/S: 16/41/22-43/11. Of some concern, I note that their in-store checks on crossbow purchasers were actually stronger than those online as in the former case, all customer identifications were checked.381 T/S: 16/43/12-44/23. They were not, at the time, marking packages for crossbow deliveries or requiring age checked deliveries, although neither of these were legal requirements. They did, however, have a log of refusals if prospective customers made inappropriate queries, to avoid selling to them in the future.382 T/S: 16/46/9-47/12. They had also always had their own crossbows sales register.383 T/S: 16/61/15-20. They have since introduced: age verified deliveries, identification document checks for all crossbow purchases (no longer relying on the electoral roll), and age labelling on the packaging. Mr Jones was also supportive of the further changes suggested in the Crime and Policing Bill, although he had only just become aware of these proposed changes.384 T/S: 16/61/9-62/17.
¶80. In a follow up document after his oral evidence, Mr Jones suggested that there should be controls to ensure that businesses selling crossbows were legitimate (he would not oppose licensing or registration of retailers).385 MERA000007/1. He raised the possibility of a government-run portal for retailers who sell age restricted products giving legal updates, a government-provided age verification check service to avoid fraudulent identification documents and guidance on the correct and proper method for age verification. He suggests that such a system could also flag if there was a difficulty with selling by reasons of a level of government ‘background check’. Mr Jones flags the need to have clear guidance on the threshold for reporting suspicious activity to the police. Mr Jones also raises whether there could be an industry “pub watch” type scheme to warn retailers of suspicious customers, but he notes that this could be open to abuse with competitors flagging genuine customers. He is in favour of a crossbow register for in-store sales, incorporating also the details of online crossbow sales.
193¶81. As with Mr Sutherland of Tactical Archery, I found Mr Jones of Merlin Archery to be a straightforward witness, doing his best to assist the Inquiry. Merlin Archery have clearly further tightened their age verification processes since the attack. I accept they are generally seeking to take a responsible approach to their marketing of archery equipment. In the case of Merlin Archery, AR’s initial query, “If I bought an 18+ product how would you verify my age, do you verify ID online or does the delivery person check my ID at my door? Also, do I have to be 18 to receive the product when it is at my door?”, clearly should have raised suspicions (as Mr Jones ultimately accepted). It is hard to see why anyone over the age of 18 would have raised these questions in this way. Merlin Archery were therefore, to some degree, at fault for not treating this as a suspicious enquiry, and ideally, they should have passed this on to the police. I note, however, both the lack of guidance provided to archery retailers in this respect, and Mr Jones’ perception of a lack of police interest when an earlier matter was reported.
Purchase of further archery kit (unidentified) from Hattila in June 2023
¶82. On 12 June 2023, AR paid £22.98 for an undisclosed item which was purchased from Hattila, an archery and crossbow supplier.386 MERP000534/7. The company is based in France. The Inquiry has sought to contact this company with a number of questions including what item AR purchased. There has been no reply to the Inquiry’s request or follow-up enquiries.
Observation H: Given the gravity of the matters being investigated, it is unfortunate that Hattila appears to have decided to ignore the Inquiry’s requests for information on a voluntary basis. Hattila appears to be a mainstream French retailer selling directly online to the UK market; it has acted poorly by failing to respond to the Inquiry’s requests for assistance.
¶83. I have addressed relevant recommendations at the end of this chapter.
194